1. . DATA QUALITY ACT: THIS ONE COULD CUT BOTH WAYS.
The Data Quality Act consists of 27 lines buried in a huge appropriations bill. It was passed a year ago, and it doesn't take effect until Oct 1, but it's powerful medicine. Among other things, according to the Federal Register, agencies must create mechanisms allowing "persons to seek and obtain correction of information" maintained by the agency. It may soon be tested.

2. EPA WINS MAJOR LAW SUIT ON PM 2.5 PARTICULATES BUT…

3. EPA ALSO WANTS TIGHTER OZONE STANDARDS: DOES SMOG CAUSE ASTHMA?

4. THE GREEN ALLURE SEEMS TO BE FADING

5. KYOTO MAY FORCE NORWAY TO BUY NUCLEAR POWER: ECONOMICS TRIUMPHS

6. NUCLEAR DETERRENCE RECONSIDERED: THE VIEWS OF A NUCLEAR VETERAN

7. WILL TUVALU SUE OVER RISING SEA LEVELS? THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE A CASE SAY AUSTRALIANS.

8. ANTARCTIC ICE SHELF BREAKUP: NO CAUSE FOR ALARM

***********************************************************************
2. JUNK SCIENCE ON SOOT

After a 5-year legal struggle reaching all the way to the Supreme Court, the EPA has apparently won its final court battle to control fine particulates (smaller than 2.5 microns) to a value of 15 micrograms per cubic meter by limiting emissions from diesel engines and (mainly coal-fired) power plants. PM 2.5 particles are considered a health hazard causing lung cancer and other cardio-pulmonary ills, according to epidemiological studies by C. Arden Pope et al. published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (March 6, 2002).

But it ain't over until the fat lady sings…There's the new Data Quality Act waiting to be tested. And what better target, according to critic Kay Jones. In "Junk Science on Soot" he attacks the study. Even though there is a plausible mechanism -- fine particle smaller that 2.5 microns can enter into the lungs - the relative risk is found to be quite small, only 1.14. This is well below 2.0 or 3.0, a value that might be considered significant in an epidemiological study. His critique points out that no association was found between lung cancer mortality and PM 2.5 for women, for men under 60 or over 70, for those who went beyond high school, or for current smokers or never-smokers --- only for former smokers. No explanation is given for these strange results.
http://www.johnlocke.org/issues/Spotlights/213_soot_study.pdf

But there are additional questions that might be raised. Will the EPA want to control wood-burning fireplaces, prodigious producers of fine particles? And barbecues?

********************************************************************

3. SHORTCOMINGS IN OZONE-ASTHMA STUDIES, SAYS REASON

Past studies have shown that air pollution can aggravate pre-existing lung ailments. However, a study published in the February 2nd issue of The Lancet found that very-active children in areas with high ozone pollution have more than three times the risk of developing asthma when compared with less active children.
Regulators and environmental activists have publicized the study, claiming it proves children all over the United States are at risk of developing asthma from air pollution, and that current standards are insufficient to protect children's health.
There's just one problem with these claims, as pointed out by Joel Schwartz, Senior Scientist and Director of the Air Quality Project of the Reason Public Policy Institute: No one in the United States is now exposed to ozone at anywhere near the levels that were associated with asthma in the Lancet study. The Lancet study was based on ozone levels in high-ozone areas of southern California from 1994 to 1997-- a period when these areas averaged 50 days per year exceeding the federal ozone standard. But due to the success of pollution control efforts, these same areas now average about 11 days per year above the standard.

The Lancet study doesn't apply to other parts of the country either, because there's no other part of the country that's ever had ozone levels as high as those of southern California. For example, the most polluted areas of Fresno and Houston--second and third for ozone pollution behind southern California--experience about 10 violations of the federal ozone standard each year. Clearly, regulators and activists err in citing the Lancet study to justify additional air pollution regulations.

To which we would add this overall observation: Asthma in children has increased markedly in past decades while air quality has been improving. Hmmm…

************************************************************************

4. ECO-MARKETING DOESN'T SELL:

After a decade of designing products to appeal to environmentally friendly sensibilities, The Wall Street Journal reports that many companies have concluded that "green" sales pitches don't sell. Some 41% of consumers say they don't buy green products because they fear the products won't work as well, according to market researchers RoperASW, which conducts an annual "Green Gauge" consumer-marketing poll. Polls have also found that shoppers "will pay for convenience far more readily than for ideology," and that the number of products marketing environmental claims has fallen steadily since 1995. Recycling rates have also declined in recent years. The article notes that environmentally friendly products that do sell well are often those that focus on personal safety concerns, rather than products that claim only environmental benefits.

************************************************************************

5 KYOTO MAY FORCE NORWAY TO BUY NUCLEAR POWER
published by EU observer.com
http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?selected_topic=none&action=view&article_id=5469

The EU ratification of the Kyoto protocol will probably force Norway to import nuclear power in dry years because Danish coal-produced power will have to be sold at an exorbitant price, according to Norwegian paper Nationen.

After the recent EU agreement on the Kyoto protocol, Norway will probably change the country's power import from Danish coal-produced power to nuclear power from other EU countries. Paradoxically, due to the use of an extraordinarily high percentage of pollution-free waterfall-produced power from Norway and Sweden in 1990, Denmark was forced to accept a 21 per cent CO2 emission cut.

The consequence will be that the coal-based power plants will either be shut down or charged exorbitant CO2 taxes, and ever energy hungry Norway will instead begin to import nuclear power, which has been seen by the energy sector as the solution to the CO2 problem, but is in Scandinavia widely (but wrongly) seen as just as problematic for the environment in the long term.

Source : Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy (Paris)

**********************************************************************

6. NUCLEAR REVIEW GOOD - BUT MORE IS NEEDED

Clinton Bastin in the Atlanta Constitution

Continuing Pentagon review of U.S. nuclear deterrence, coupled with commitments by President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin for further large reductions in numbers of nuclear warheads, is essential for national security and future well-being of life on this planet.

In an ideal world, which is not achievable, nuclear deterrence would not be needed because there would be no nations under dictator rule like Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea - or the former Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. A better world, which is achievable, would include stronger efforts with better incentives for nuclear arms reductions worldwide, a strengthened international inspection regime with free access to all uses of nuclear materials and other activities that might lead to weapons of mass destruction, and strong, multinational military support to counter infractions or denial of access to inspectors.

The discovery of nuclear fission, which has tens of millions times the energy output of conventional fuels and explosives, brought great potential for benefit but also great potential for destruction - and enormous dilemmas for leaders of freedom-loving nations. Its discovery in Nazi Germany nine months before the start of World War II resulted in the need for authorization by President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the Manhattan Project to build nuclear weapons to deter their possible use by Germany. The weapons were used by the U.S. to bring an early end to the war with Japan and save hundreds of thousands of Japanese and American lives. I was in the US Marine Corps at the time, and have long believed that lives of many of my colleagues and perhaps mine were among those saved.

In addressing the first meeting of the US Atomic Energy Commissioners following World War II, President Harry S. Truman said "that he wanted the entire development of nuclear energy to be devoted to peace and not to war." But he was later forced to authorize massive efforts for a thermonuclear-based strategic nuclear deterrent to oppose expansionist plans and nuclear weapons buildup of Soviet Union dictator Joseph Stalin.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower offered a U.S. program for "Atoms for Peace" to provide incentives for peaceful and not weapons uses of nuclear materials and technology. These atoms provided bases for the development of international safeguards that also limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately poor decisions on some supplies of "peaceful atoms" led to nuclear weapons proliferation, proliferation threats and ultimately loss of U.S. programs and policies needed for best proliferation management.

President Theodore Roosevelt said "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Those who would threaten see the stick and back off. Nuclear deterrence is our "big stick," but it's not visible unless we make clear our intent to use it against threats. President Bush's statements and the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review" make it very clear to nations that (they) will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies or friends." Saddam Hussein seems to have received the message; Iraq is discussing the possible resumption of international inspections.

Further nuclear review should include reconsideration of U.S. plans for wasteful expenditures of hundreds of billions of dollars for missile defense, which would be problematical at best - and counterproductive for any conceivable attack by a terrorist nation with a nuclear or other weapon of mass destruction. Launch of a missile with such a weapon would certainly be detected, probably result in a miss and subject the deliverer to massive retaliation. Well-planned delivery by boat, truck and/or plane would probably not be detected and be very precise and successful.

Further review should also lead to increased emphasis by the U.S. on diplomatic efforts to strengthen International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards inspections, strong military support to ensure full IAEA access, and increased multinational cooperation for peaceful uses of nuclear technology with good nonproliferation practices. In particular, the U.S. should support completion by Russia of a nuclear power plant for Iran under the policy that provides for return of used nuclear fuel to Russia. This policy, which was also U.S. policy at the outset of nuclear power, precludes any use by Iran of plutonium in used fuel for nuclear weapons. Completion of the nuclear power plant would also provide more IAEA inspectors that would further ensure peaceful nuclear intentions of Iran.

*********************************************************************

7. TUVALU IS THREATENING TO SUE WASHINGTON AND AUSTRALIA over their refusal to back the Kyoto protocol, which sets targets aimed at cutting greenhouse emissions blamed for global warming and rising sea levels. While not expecting to win what would be lengthy and expensive legal cases, observers say that Tuvalu would at least draw global attention to its plight.

"The Pacific Island of Tuvalu has criticised Australia's position on global warming for favouring the United States at the expense of its neighbours." Tuvalu's Prime Minister, Koloa Talake, said he was considering international legal action against major Australian companies whose emissions contributed to global warming and rising sea levels.

Pacific states are seeking ways to blackmail rich polluting nations and multinational concerns whose emissions of greenhouse gases they say are wiping them out. Tuvalu, a string of nine coral atolls five meters (16 feet) above sea level at their highest point, fears its last palm tree could sink beneath the Pacific within 50 years. Other threatened Pacific islands include Kiribati, Niue and the Marshall Islands and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean.

Bob Foster writes us from Adelaide: "Such an action by the Tuvalu authorities would be the best that could happen since then the scientific foundation of the 'greenhouse effect' would be tested in court and independent scientists would be heard as experts. Provided we could be sure the action would be brought in the US or Australia, and not The Hague, we sceptics might consider launching the 'Save Tuvalu' campaign."

Tuvalu and other Pacific nations were looking at taking legal action in the International Court of Justice. A case against Australia was possible, but action against Australian companies was more likely, Mr. Talake said. These industries in industrialised countries, they are the cause of global warming and they are the ones we would like to take to court. Companies likely to face action would be the biggest gas emitters, such as major oil companies, he said.

Mr. Talake also announced a partnership with Ecos Corporation, headed by former Greenpeace chief Paul Gilding, to develop a model for a sustainable and renewable energy system for Tuvalu, likely to be based on solar or wave power."

Australia's National Tidal Facility (NTF), based at Flinders University in Adelaide, has installed and maintained eight sophisticated tide gauges at South Pacific sites, including Tuvalu. Since the instrumentation was installed in 1993, average sea level increase at Tuvalu has been 0.5 mm/yr, being a rate of 5 cm per century.

A similar analysis of 27 data-sets for the Pacific (longest record, 92 years at Honolulu) yields a rise of 8 cm per century. Crucially, the Mitchell et al paper says: "..... visually at least, and at this stage, there is no clear evidence for an acceleration in sea level trends over the course of the last century."

Why then is Mr. Talake so upset?

He could be concerned that the Summary for Policymakers of IPCC's new Third Assessment Report states that:
"Tide-gauge data show that global-averaged sea level rose between 0.1 and 0.2 metres (i.e. 10 and 20 cm) during the 20th century." But "Within present uncertainties, observations and models are both consistent with a lack of significant acceleration of sea level rise during the 20th century." And continues, implausibly: "Global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.09 to 0.88 metres between 1990 and 2100."

Even this dubious prediction should pose no problem for a coral atoll. After all, the sea has risen some 130 metres over the past 20,000 years, and atolls have maintained their station - at just above sea level.

Coral grows, if you let it. Storms break it off, and throw it up above the reach of normal tides. Islands like Tuvalu are self-maintaining - provided you don't interfere. But if you gather up the coral debris for use in construction work; if you pave parts of the highly-permeable island surface and allow fresh water from rainfall to run into the sea instead of soak into the ground; and if you build flush toilets and discharge the effluent into the sea; then your island is doomed.

"It is likely that Mr. Talake's problem is real enough. He calls it greenhouse. I would call it over-population," writes Bob Foster.

***********************************************************************

8. THE LARSEN-B ICE SHELF BREAKUP IS NO CAUSE FOR ALARM,

So says principal investigator Ted Scambos, glaciologist with the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder, CO. The cause is regional warming and sea level rise will be insignificant. (Ref.: Eos 83, p.158, 2 April 002)

SEPP Comment:
A team from the University of East Anglia (UK) has discovered an extensive region of vigorous mixing of ocean waters in the Scotia Sea. This is an area of rough topography that lies between the Antarctic Peninsula and Tierra del Fuego. [K.J. Heywood et al, Nature 415, 1011, 2002]. So perhaps a recent shift in ocean currents, coupled to a more global climate oscillation, is the reason for the local warming trend that caused the ice shelf collapse. Just speculating…

And did you know that the Shelf sits on the Antarctic Circle, a long way from the South Pole…